That's the rub of the matter isn't it. Due to the lack of evidence noone can be deemed to be involved in law. It doesn't make people innocent though. Just not enough to nail them.

Many people are actually guilty of crimes (I'm not referring to the McCanns) go to trial and are still found not guilty, because there was reasonable doubt. I was watching a case on Crime and Investigation last night where a man went to trial and was proved not guilty, and then years later he confessed to the crime to the newspapers, but of course he couldn't be re-tried. A case in point, where most people are split is the OJ Simpson trial, many people beleived him to be guilty, but he had top class lawyers and was acquitted.

Well what does fit the evidence? Child missing, window left open, man seen carrying a child through streets not identified, unidentified prints in apartment, parental involvement ruled out, what's left?

Parental involvement has NOT been ruled out. The conclusion was that it was inconclusive!

Well, an investigation that involved two police forces and cost millions of Euros came to the conclusion, as per the prosecutor's report, that there was no evidence to link any of the arguidos to any crime.

I don't actually think that this is synonymous with 'inconclusive' - it's rather more than that.It's saying 'we have investigated the three arguidos to the full extent that we are able and we can't find one damn thing to nail on them'.

If you choose to believe this is 'inconclusive' then of course that is your right, but most people don't see it that way. As far as most are concerned, the Mccanns are cleared.

They have not been cleared because they have never stepped inside a court room to be cleared. They have not yet been shown to be guilty but nor have they been shown to be innocent. Nobody, neither you nor me, knows whether they are guilty or not. As previously stated it is a far more likely scenario that they ( or one or more of their friends) are implicated because statistically, that is the case. They were the last people to see Madeleine alive, there is absolutely nothing to signify abduction other than their say so and a cadaver dog alerted only in their apartment and belongings. Their behaviour has also raised eyebrows. I know, logically, which 'theory' is most likely.

Well what does fit the evidence? Child missing, window left open, man seen carrying a child through streets not identified, unidentified prints in apartment, parental involvement ruled out, what's left?

Parental involvement has NOT been ruled out. The conclusion was that it was inconclusive!

Well, an investigation that involved two police forces and cost millions of Euros came to the conclusion, as per the prosecutor's report, that there was no evidence to link any of the arguidos to any crime.

I don't actually think that this is synonymous with 'inconclusive' - it's rather more than that.It's saying 'we have investigated the three arguidos to the full extent that we are able and we can't find one damn thing to nail on them'.

If you choose to believe this is 'inconclusive' then of course that is your right, but most people don't see it that way. As far as most are concerned, the Mccanns are cleared.

If, and personally I think the opposite, 'as far as most are concerned the Mccanns are innocent', this does not make them so, therefore should not be written as fact.

Where in the world are these courts then, that declare people innocent? If you get charged with a crime you'd even end up declared guilty or NOT guilty (never innocent). If there is no evidence, or not enough evidence, you simply do not get charged to begin with. Thereby you are, in the eyes of the law (and most thinking people) just as innocent as the next person.

@MaryB wrote:Why must we believe the abduction theory. I simply don't believe an abductor entered the apartment and took Madeleine. I just simply do not believe that happened. I might be wrong of course. Why is this the theory that is being so heavily pushed.

There's really only 4 scenarios.

1) she had an accident - her parents and/or friends successfully disposed of her body.

2)She died at the hands of her parents and/or friends who successfully disposed of her body.

3) She wandered out of the apartment and met her fate at the hands of a third party or had an accident that involved her disappearing.

4) She was removed from the unattended apartment by a third party.

If her parents were not involved then of course scenario 3 and 4 are the only option to be 'pushed'.

If her parents were not involved then what other option would or could they put forward?

Well what does fit the evidence? Child missing, window left open, man seen carrying a child through streets not identified, unidentified prints in apartment, parental involvement ruled out, what's left?

Parental involvement has NOT been ruled out. The conclusion was that it was inconclusive! What actual EVIDENCE points to an abduction other than one of their friends saying they saw a man walking away with a child? JW didn't even see Jane Tanner and said it would have been impossible NOT to see her if she passed by when she said she did! The only independent witnesses saw a man that some of the group said was Gerry, walking with a child. The window, if opened at all, was opened by Kate Mccann herself as her fingerprints showed.Parental involvement is, statistically, far, far,more likely than stranger abduction. Their weird comments and behaviour is also a pointer and we also have the dogs. Therefore, parental involvement is a far more likely scenario and NOTHING HAS BEEN RULED OUT and that includes the Mccanns and/or friends being involved.

Parental involvement is statistically more likely before a shred of evidence has been collected, not now, not now the parents have been investigated, it's not a static thing, each case is different. What were the statistics for James Bulger being taken by the hand by two small boys, tortured and left dead? As close to zero as it could be, however, once the parents story was checked out and eye witnesses found and sadly most importantly his body found then the story became clear.

Without a body of course it's always going to be hard to make assertions of fact, that's just a sad fact of reality, but when peple are investigated by two police forces and nothing found to suggest they were involved then you can't just pretend that hasn't been done because you don't like the outcome.

Like many people I suspect, my wish is that if, sadly Madeleine is dead I'd much rather know that it was an accident or a quick death and it covered up by her parents than for her to be have been taken by someone who chances are treated her in a way that a child should never ever be treated but to do that I would have to discount all the work done and all the evidence collected and that's not right.

Regarding the parts of the files which are open to the public. Would you say they concluded that Madeleine was taken by an abductor. I have read bits of the files. And from what I have read they make no such conclusion.

@MaryB wrote:Regarding the parts of the files which are open to the public. Would you say they concluded that Madeleine was taken by an abductor. I have read bits of the files. And from what I have read they make no such conclusion.

Well they conclude that it is a possibility and they conclude that there is no evidence of any crime committed by any of three arguido's. So .... are we back to aliens?

@MaryB wrote:If there is a child abductor. Why is there no police force looking for this extremely dangerous person. Who snatches children from their beds.

They did. But once a trail has gone cold what do you suggest they do, there are crimes being committed every day, many serious, many as equally heartbreaking, it's not like any police force can put other crime on hold until they find the perpetrator. It's just not financially or practically viable. eventually every unsolved case gets shelved pending new information. This is standard.

The McCanns are doing everything they can to increase the chances of new information, new evidence being found by using everything at their disposal, there really is nothing else they can do, just hope that they are not another Kerry Needham, producing age progression pictures of Madeleine for her 18th birthday and so on.

@MaryB wrote:If there is a child abductor. Why is there no police force looking for this extremely dangerous person. Who snatches children from their beds.

Well that remains a mystery, because only the processes against the arguidos were archived:"Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

Portimão, 21.07.08

The Republic’s Prosecutor

(José de Magalhães e Menezes)

The Joint General Prosecutor

(signature)

(João Melchior Gomes) "

So why aren't the Portuguese authorities actively trying to solve the case of a missing girl?

@flytrap wrote:What about the blood spot that was found in 5a that was not identified as being anyone involved within the investigation. However, it did partially match dna found at the scene of another crime?

@flytrap wrote:What about the blood spot that was found in 5a that was not identified as being anyone involved within the investigation. However, it did partially match dna found at the scene of another crime?

Does that not point to the possibility of an abductor?

Have you got any more details about that please?

I'll see if I can find it in my notes from the files and post later DCB1

@flytrap wrote:What about the blood spot that was found in 5a that was not identified as being anyone involved within the investigation. However, it did partially match dna found at the scene of another crime?

Does that not point to the possibility of an abductor?

Have you got any more details about that please?

I'll see if I can find it in my notes from the files and post later DCB1

ooops you dont like smilies lol

Ah but that was dna found at the scene of another crime was analyzed using an old method.

"It has matched with a sample of a spot recovered from a crime and cannot, at this time, be associated with a specific individual. Nevertheless, as that sample was processed with the old SGM system I consider the match to be of negligible significance."

Still, no matter if it's related to another crime scene, it's unidentified.Could it be evidence of an abductor? We'll probably never know until they find that person to whom it belongs.Is it likely? It's from a stain on the wall.I understood Portugal didn't have a DNA database at the time and they implemented it during 2008.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...

Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM, retired Met Commissioner: "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."